tv [untitled] February 2, 2012 11:18am-11:48am PST
through the next three years, and as the devices reach the end of their life we would replace, so the cost cc at the bottom for devices would be replacing those at an average of $300 per year over the three-year time we defined as the first phase of deployment. those would be the minimum spirit of we would aggressively be looking for a grant funding or other funding, because we believe it is going to be valuable. this would be the starting point, but we would be aggressively looking at grant funding to purchase additional devices to supplement if we find the funding, and i think i am
going to stop theire and open it up. if you have any questions, i would be happy to answer those. >> why don't we go on? >> good afternoon. i briefly wanted to support this project. it has great benefits for the department and the city as of hole. good region -- city as a whole. my understanding is the project will provide us with another tool but most definitely could assist us, to be able to have the tool of data we do not currently have. it may allow us to take a look from a broader scale.
another great example is about six weeks ago on golden gate ave. i know members of the department of emergency management and were monitoring the video curator of we do not have the benefit of having a command post. -- were monitoring the video. we do not have the benefit of having a command post. it would certainly be of benefit, because we have a system that is the voice system on the radio, but to have the added benefit of data would enhance technology and allow us greater management at each and every instance we respond to. i also wanted to comment fire department does see this as a priority, so in this fiscal year the $50,000 we hadn' for an it project, you might have questions about what we hear
market for. we were trying to integrate networks, -- about what we had earmarked it for. we were trying to integrate networks. i am happy to report my i.t. manager has resolved that issue, so i feel comfortable reallocating those funds, and my understanding is they agreed to come up with the remaining $42,000 to fill that gap this fiscal year. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. the san francisco police department is extremely supportive of this project. we have a devoted a significant amount of time going to meetings to get to this point,
and it is very interesting, and i think it has benefits for the police department and the residents of san francisco. this radio is the most important to on my gun belt. i could use it 100 times a day and not touch anything else, but it only allows me to talk to people. i cannot get pictures or anything else the provides public safety. we currently have 140 devices. we are in competition when we use those devices. and we believe we can transfer those over to the system when it is up and running. we have a dedicated network that is critical to san francisco. we rely on data sharing, but we are competing for that band witdth.
if that new year you try to use your blackberry, it works, but it is very sluggish. we are very limited with what we have now, so we can look at a picture of a missing child or missing alzheimer's patient on our radio. the system is critical to provide these services. we can give a description of people we are looking for, but when you are looking for a child when there are hundreds of thousands of people, it is much easier to have a picture we can share with each other and the public. this is a regional project. we are a commute city. we have people coming in from oakland. they jump on board and they come to civic center and the tenderloin, and their intent is critical activity.
we need to be able to communicate much more effectively than we are now, and i do believe this will allow us facthat. this network will approve the -- improve the efficiency for officers in the field. it will enable them to be highly visible to the public, to be there if the public needs them, but they can also complete police reports from the car, and that is not something we have been able to do. we have to go back to the police station to do those police reports, and this is something we are very excited about. >> is that because the commercial carrier is not secure announcement? of >> we do not have that ability right now, and that is the reason we are not able to do that now you're gonna -- to do
presentations. during the talks, it was not the final agreement. the project is coalescing in a very rapid manner, so i want to assure you there has been some conversation, and i think i hear, but is this an opportunity if we move forward region which i think we should, because it is really the blueprint of what the rest of the nation will do if we are successful, to rethink our strategy around radio communications across the city.
i know you have seen there are several other historic projects ready to get under way. we have already heard this is solidifying. i would advocate strongly it is the most important project of all the projects you here. gwe are passionate about maintaining the system, and we are eager to evaluate, because we have this pending need, and we are hoping our initial
projections of $65 million to replace that can be reduced by taking advantage of this and if we move forward with it. i would like to say i know a lot of these things are moving forward quickly, but there was also lot of conversation of why this was not talked about in the information technology plans. the information technology plan was the first time the city had a five-year vision of where we wanted to go. it is unfortunate the timing of the original ict plan approved in april of last year, and as you have heard, the jpa agreement was not formed until the fall of last year.
this project have not coalesced enough to be included in any level of detail of. we committed to updating the plan on an annual basis, and we are in the process right now. we will do our annual updates. it is an unfunded need, but we are well aware that the replacement of radios and improvement of radios is it a priority for the city, so we are hoping with your approval and the approval of the board but we can include this project with the updated version you will be approving this year.
>> thank you. i do not think there are any questions at this moment you're a good -- at this moment. i am happy to speak in support of the bay web system. is a regional system, and every day we deal wesith interoperable latina. -- inoperability. the prospect of having a system that is regional will help us in the long run. water, power, and sanitation are lifelines, so being able to communicate is very important, not only communicating with
ourselves, but with our customers and the other operational areas and emergency responders roups the to the region responders throughout the communities. we also use video and data, so this system would be fantastic to help us pass the information through, and finally, puc is doing work regionally to enhance our own communications, which could be leveraged with the bay project, and we are in communications with these issues. do you have any questions? >> i do not believe we do at the moment. >> our last speaker is the co- chair of the urban security initiative, and he is the
sharapova -- the chair of the apa, so i thought it would be applicable to have him speak. >> i will be brief. almost everything has been said that needs to be said about the importance of this system. as a member and participant from day one, san francisco has been a great partner regionally, particularly with this project, and it is very critical that we all keep our partnership going. there are a couple of cities and it may not be able to be first in, but as was noted, the city
of oakland will be covered, so they will not really be out. there will be a matter of them when they get a chance to come in the of the infrastructure will be there, so the infrastructure is designed to hopefully have no gaps, so we will have of our regional infrastructure that everyone can use. i want to highlight again the commercial systems we are using, that while they work, they have lots of problems. many of us have experienced large sporting events where deputies and police officers are there, but they are unable to
communicate with their data because everybody else brings the system down. a large number of the size of the van with required -- of the bandwidth required, and one thing is they are pushing out video from the buses right into the police cars, so there will of some of the incidents that unfortunately occur on the buses. i want to talk a second about the timing of this. i had an opportunity to me with the ntia a month ago and i asked if there was any way that there would be an extension on the grant. so that we could have more time to get these negotiations completed. the answer was unequivocal no. this was the last chance, do it
now or do not do it at all. we see this as a great opportunity. supervisor campos: thank you -- supervisor kim:. thank you. >supervisor avalos: why was the answer no? >> the finding -- funding comes through the reinvestment act funding and congress -- >> another question for one of the other presenters. fcc guidelines say who could be the users of the bay web system. what do the guidelines say right now? who are the first responders who would use the system? >> thank you. the definition of eligible user is in flux right now.
the definition must be a public safety user and for public safety purpose. that does not rate -- mean to much. it is up to the fcc to interpret that and determine who it can and cannot be. the fcc issued an order on this specific question. supervisor avalos: if i can stop you, the language is not more specific than that? >> the language says it must be used by a governmental -- by governmental users for public safety uses and purposes. it is very broad. >> supervisor avalos: mta, puc. >> perhaps. there are times when every public city employer is a public safety worker especially in large disasters and that type of
thing. what the fcc has done is to interpret that. they have in their ruling they have consistently expanded or broaden that definition as they go. the most recently was in the fall of last year. they specifically cited transportation agencies, ports, airports, those types of public agencies as being in there -- this order, being eligible users for the 700 mhz system. i anticipate also that the fcc could probably also expand that to public-works workers. other workers who may not normally have a public safety function but certainly in an emergency or some event or incident become public safety workers and their work becomes critical to the response for the first response and the follow-up response to address the
incident. the definition is a little bit fluid right now, but it is expanding. so we expect in future years to expand the ability for our workers here in san francisco to use it. supervisor avalos: for it to be expanded and you say it is in flux, does it mean that the fcc or congress has to approve what the new definitions would be to make it more specific? how would that be settled? >> congress could change the definition. they're written in federal law. in the absence of congressional action, it is up to the fcc to define those definitions and interpret more clearly for us to can and cannot use the system. there really is the fcc at this point making those decisions. >supervisor avalos: for our purposes, who are the people, city workers who are considered
first responders? >> it is the public safety agencies. we have looked at this and find it for purposes of county, 875 devices as the agencies to sit in the eoc when it is activated in an emergency. there are 19 agencies that currently are called to be part of the eeoc -- eoc when it is activated. that is when we have drawn our line right now in terms of who can and cannot be an fallujah -- user on the system. that does include mta. it does include dpw, i believe and some of the other agencies that you would not think of as a strictly public safety agencies. supervisor avalos: for the purposes of homeland security, what they want to see a more restrictive definition of what the public safety function
would be, or more expensive? >> it is hard to speak for homeland security. i can briefly speak for the other early builders of these networks. obviously, we feel that it is important to have an expansive definition as possible of the network. we believe it will be -- bring value in and out -- in a number of ways. we are advocating and lobbying for an expansive definition. from 0-- anne can talk about home security. >> there is a conference call and the cities who are involved in that. it is universal across the country there is an -- a desire to have the expanded definition. we have seen with the fed and other things attali different subject but similar experience. the definition of homelessness
used to be very -- it was very limited. and after cities began to lobby congress and washington, it is now, you know, they have picked up san francisco's definition of homeless which is people living in cars, living on couches, count surfing, and so on. we feel the same kind of thing will happen here. the fcc has not narrowly defined it. it is broadly defined. it is our belief as we move forward to that as more and more communities get involved in this, we know who the first responders are in an emergency and it is all those that barry mentioned. supervisor avalos: it is about the 800 mhz system. one last question. when was that established? how long have we had that? >>13 years?
>> we're trying to search your memory. we are thinking 1997, 1996. >> 1996. we went into contract in 1996. it was after the 101 california incident. that is what motivated us to move forward. our first responders on scene could not communicate. supervisor avalos: how long do we expect a 700 mhz system to last? >> we believe the current hardware version of the technology is good for about 10 years. and i wanted to address quickly a question that came up earlier about possible cost of replacing the system after 10 years. the jta has put a lot of thought
into that and we are planning to develop what we call a sinking fund that we will establish probably beginning year three or so that will build up over time to be able to give us funding to make that upgrade at the end of the 10-year useful life. that will probably come as part of an administrative fee that will be taxed to the user -- that will be tapped to the user fee. we can keep a low and is part of the $5 we are charging for administrative fees for the jpa to begin building that fund. the other thing is this digital broadband technology will be evolving over time. it is not so much that we will be possibly a forklift upgrade where everything is replaced at the end of 10 years. it could be that the technology
is your place gradually over time where we're able to spread out as costs somewhat. we're not looking at a large amount at 10 years but we're able to spread those upgrade costs over time. supervisor kim: this is a follow-up question. the term of the subject agreement is 12 years. is it possible to reduce this to 10 years being that this is the projected estimates for how long the system will be useful? >> that is a little bit of a confusion, too. the 12 years is the total time of the agreement. we understand the system will not be operational for the first year or year and a half. motorola is under the master boom agreement for the jpa, committing to operate the system for 10 years from start of dates which is sometime in mid-2013 through 2023. supervisor kim: i understand that. the time -- 10 years starts
today. while we are ready to install the system. >> that is true. i am getting your question. we need to upgrade this to four or the end of the current boom agreement? that is not our plan from the jpa. the useful life is 10 years but the 800 mhz system has been going for a 13 or 14 years. simply because -- it is difficult to predict what we're going to do. >> the answer was sufficient. it sounds like there are no more presentations from the department? why don't we go to the budget analyst? there were some revisions. >> i will briefly summarize the additional information that we provided this week from last week. on page 8 of the report, we met
the revised cost of this particular piece of legislation. just the least permit, utilities, and related costs. the total estimated cost to the city over the proposed 12-year site access and use agreement ranges from $3 million to $4 million. as you know last week, those costs were in the area of approximately $7 million. again, funding sources have not been specifically identified to pay for such costs. on page 9 of our report we point out that the inspector general of the united states department of commerce has raised various concerns regarding the application, the grant application. however, none of those concerns caused the inspector general to seize the project. we just point that out on page 9 of our report.
on page 10 of our report, again, we make reference to the $43 a month access fee was $38 being payable to motorola, $5 payable to the bay bridge authority, and again, funding sources have not yet been identified for those costs as well as the additional costs for their radios or computer devices which are estimated to range from $400 to $1,500. let me say that we thank very much ms. kronenberg for providing this information about the cost data and other elements of this plan. as of the riding of our report we have not had the opportunity to determine exactly what the costs will be. in addition to the costs that are before you today and that is on the lease cost.